Interview: Gyula Ocskay on Re-wording Borders and Rethinking Regional Integration

Gyula Ocskay is the Secretary General of the Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI), a think tank and consultancy based in Budapest. CESCI works to reduce the separating effects of borders and promote cross-border cooperation in Central and South-East Europe. With a background in political science and regional development, Ocskay has been an important voice in European border studies for over a decade. In this interview, Ocskay, who will also speak at the upcoming 9th Forum of European Minority Regions (26–28 June 2025 in Novi Sad/Újvidék, Serbia), discusses how changing the narratives around borders – a process he calls “re-wording” – can strengthen integration and mutual trust. He highlights the role of minorities as bridges in cross-border cooperation, the tangible benefits of open borders for everyday life and the political frameworks needed to support cohesive regional development across Europe.

Mr. Ocskay, could you briefly describe the focus of your work at CESCI and the main challenges you typically encounter?

CESCI is designed to systematically challenge the separating effects of administrative borders in Central and South-East Europe. Borders always put distance in physical space. When eliminating their effects, we facilitate integration and trust between countries and varied ethnic groups.

Since 2015, this mission has been challenged by multiple crises, from the migration wave and the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium to Brexit, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and their economic consequences. All these events enhanced the narratives promoting the nation-state paradigm, and resulted in nearly 2000 km of new fences, re-established control measures along the internal Schengen borders, and increasing mutual distrust between the EU Member States. Today, security precedes solidarity, protection of national interest is more important than cohesion, and borders as separating hard lines are reinforced against integration.

CESCI speaks of “re-wording the borders” – what exactly does this motto mean, and how do you implement it in practice?

In this context, our principle is that borders are discursive facts: even if, very rarely, they follow physical barriers, their social and political meanings, i.e. that they exclude and integrate by separation, are given through different narratives materialised in peace treaties, international conventions, rules and statutes. Our mission is to restructure the narratives stipulating the administrative borders and decrease their significance in our region. The borders cannot be eliminated, but their “story” spoken through words can be rephrased. This is what “re-wording” means.

In practice, we challenge the traditional visions of politico-geographic space and the role the borders play in it through a comprehensive portfolio of activities. We aim to reduce the barrier effects of the borders, which is not possible without changing the perceptions and the spatial behaviour of the border citizens: we have to enable them to equally use the assets and services available on both sides of the border. For this purpose, we collect evidence on these assets and compile integrated cross-border development plans; we assist the local and regional actors to create the cross-border governance structures to manage these assets jointly; we thrive to improve access to funding opportunities of integrated cross-border interventions through drafting and evaluating cross-border and transnational EU programmes, the development of integrated tools, and addressing cross-border legal obstacles; we actively advocate the border regions through policy recommendations at national and EU levels; and we develop the capacities of the local stakeholders by organising training courses and knowledge exchanges, disseminating information, and providing consultancy. Finally, behind the whole package, there is a strong scientific basis, as it is one of the leading think-tanks of Central Europe in Border Studies.

In your experience, what role does the inclusion of minority communities play in cross-border cooperation?

The most banal symbol is a bridge. Indeed, minorities have a comparative advantage in cross-border cooperation, namely that they speak and understand both countries’ languages and administrative systems, as well as they are familiar with the cultural environment. They can equally mediate between institutions, municipalities, entrepreneurs, and ordinary citizens.

Besides, ethnic minorities are both protagonists and representatives of regionalism: their identity is kept through narratives, traditions, and gastronomy bound to the territory where they are living. One of the major inventions of the European project is the subsidiarity principle, offering a ‘raison d’être’ for the regions. Ethnic minorities are the protectors of this idea.

At the same time, their presence along the borders might mean a threat to the territorial sovereignty of the majority community. This is a phenomenon that we often witness in the post-communist bloc. When you involve minorities in cross-border cooperation, it may generate suspicion and distrust. Sometimes it even results in purposeful discriminating territorial policies and direct political interventions. Nevertheless, this attitude also unfavours the majority people living in the same border area: their perspectives are also limited by the nationalist decisions.

Accordingly, CESCI focuses on spatial processes and opportunities. When supporting cross-border integration, we aim to improve the living conditions of the border citizens, regardless of their ethnicities. If you open the border and create the means of mobility and development, you will favour everyone living there. Better living conditions help eliminate interethnic conflicts, which is the best way to protect minorities.

Can you share some good examples where cross-border projects have had a tangible impact on people’s everyday lives in border regions?

Every time you open the border, you create the possibility of moving. The post-communist peoples who suffered a lot of closed borders during the 20th century, know very well what free movement means: you have access to goods, services, jobs, higher salary, better education, new friends, etc. – freedom. Just remember the time of COVID: it was the time when even the younger generation realised all the advantages free movement can bring to them.

Open borders always generate a flow of goods, people, services, and capital. But, with the help of the instruments developed by the European Union, we can increase the frequency and the effectiveness of these flows. In many border areas, the rescue services are managed jointly: the nearest ambulance car takes the patient to the nearest hospital, regardless of the border. In some cases, even the inpatient and outpatient services are available in a borderless way. In my hometown, Esztergom, located at the Slovak border, the management of the hospital signed a contract with a Slovak private insurance company in 2004 to enable the treatment of the clients of the company in Hungary. Every year, 200 to 250 Slovak citizens are cured in our hospital.  In the Pyrenees, there is a hospital jointly operated and financed by France and Catalonia.

Larger investors and malls like settling down in border regions, also taking the workforce and the buyers living on the other side of the border into consideration. All this ensures the sustainability of the production capacities and reduces unemployment across the border. Furthermore, as a side effect, cross-border transport infrastructure and public transport services are also developed.

So, just open the border and do not harm free movement, you will see the positive impacts!

What political or institutional frameworks would be needed to further strengthen cross-border cooperation in Europe?

During the last decades, the European Union has been developing a comprehensive toolkit to facilitate smooth cooperation across its internal and external borders as well. This toolkit includes the financial means (Interreg), the legal tools (the acquis communautaire), and the governance mechanisms (twinning, euroregions and EGTCs). Most recently, through the BRIDGEforEU Regulation, the EU created the framework for the systematic elimination of legal obstacles. So, the frameworks are here, the institutional ones included.

Some years ago, we believed that the evolution of cross-border integration could result in cross-border elected bodies and direct representation of the border regions at the EU institutions. Today, it no longer seems to be feasible due to the multiple crises I mentioned. Even to keep the internal borders open is a big challenge today. The maximum that we can hope it is the establishment of the cross-border coordination points envisaged by the BRIDGEforEU Regulation. However, we should not give up on working for boosting citizens’ participation in cross-border structures, which can pave the way for stronger local democracies in the cross-border regions.

What are your expectations for the upcoming FUEN Forum in Novi Sad, and how can an event like this contribute to the advancement of European border regions?

I think every event which spotlights the advantages of cooperation has a remarkable added value in the current situation, characterised by a lack of mutual trust. Minorities can do a lot for this, as their survival is deeply rooted in the principles of cooperation and tolerance. They can be seen as the pioneers of mutual rapproachment and subsidiarity: they are bridges between nations, and, at the same time, they represent regionalism in a salient way, i.e. through their language, their culture, and their identity bound to a particular territory. European regionalism cannot be separated from the protection of autochthonous ethnic groups. Novi Sad, populated by more than 20 different ethnic groups, is an excellent place to deliver the double message of minorities, namely cooperation and regionalism, as in the Parliament of Vojvodina, you can speak in six official languages. Perhaps, Serbia shows the way for many European countries today…

Further information:

• B
• W
• L